Att 6 Instructions to Offeror and Evaluation Procedures-Amendment 01.pdf

1 | P a g e

Addenda to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items

Addendum to 52.212-1(b), Submission of Offers. The paragraph is tailored as follows:

The Government will award a Task Order resulting from the solicitation to the offeror whose proposal conforms to the Solicitation and is the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Factors being utilized to evaluate proposals are:

Factor 1 – Past Performance Factor 2 – Price

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS: Provide one (1) electronic proposal. The proposal shall be submitted in four (4) sections: Administrative, Past Performance, Price, and Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

Offers shall be received electronically via email to Kari Barnett (kari.barnett@us.af.mil) and Laura Herring (laura.herring.2@us.af.mil) no later than 04 AUG 2020 at 12:00PM (noon). All packages requiring fill-in information must be returned with the offeror’s proposal, unless otherwise changed via sol amendment. Solicitation amendments must be acknowledged in writing or the proposal may be considered non-responsive. It is the offeror’s responsibility to check FBO for amendments issued against this Solicitation and respond accordingly. Offerors are strongly advised to submit their proposals well in advance of the closing date and time to mitigate the risk of technical difficulty and ensure that the complete proposal is timely received.

Late submissions, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offerers will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f). Hard copies of the proposal are not required and will not be accepted.

QUESTIONS: Any questions must be received electronically via email to Kari Barnett (kari.barnett@us.af.mil) and Laura Herring (laura.herring.2@us.af.mil) before 27 JULY 2020 @ 12:00PM (noon). Questions submitted after the question due date may not be accepted. In the event issues pertaining to this Solicitation cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the Contracting Officer (CO), the CO reserves the right to withdraw or cancel the Solicitation at no additional cost to the Government.

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation.

Responses to this solicitation shall strictly adhere to the requirements set forth in the solicitation.

Submissions that do not adhere to format and content requirements may be considered non-compliant. The Government reserves the right to eliminate any such proposals from consideration for award. The proposal shall not contain any extraneous information such as advertisements or marketing material.

SECTION I – ADMINISTRATIVE:

Offerors shall ensure that their proposal reflects offeror's name, address, telephone number, CAGE code, DUNS number, points of contact (POCs) authorized to communicate with the Government on the offeror's behalf, and the solicitation number.

mailto:kari.barnett@us.af.mil mailto:kari.barnett@us.af.mil mailto:laura.herring.2@us.af.mil

2 | P a g e

Executed Standard Form 1442/Signed Teaming Agreements, if applicable

(a) Submit the Standard Form 1449 and all pages originally included in the RFP. Submit one

(1) copy. Complete blocks 12, 17and 30a-c of the SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer and Award. An authorized official of the firm submitting the offer must sign and date the SF 1449 in block 30a-c. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP. Complete all fill-in clauses.

(b) Signed Teaming Agreements (if applicable), submit signed Teaming Agreements or signed Letters of Intent and a complete, coherent presentation of team abilities, as applicable. All team members must have a signed Teaming Agreement (TA) or Letter Of Intent (LOI) that commits the parties to performance under this contract. If Teaming Partners will be used, a complete, coherent presentation of team abilities must be included.

(i) A subcontractor without a TA or LOI with the Offeror is NOT considered as part of the “team” and will not be evaluated as such.

(ii) Past Performance Information submitted for subcontractors without a TA or LOI will not be evaluated.

(iii) The Government will consider the Offeror and all subcontractors a “team” when a signed TA or LOI is provided in Volume I.

(iv) A Joint Venture (JV) will be considered a sole business entity.

SECTION II – PAST PERFORMANCE:

The Past Performance Information shall be submitted using Attachments 3 and 4, respectively, to this solicitation.

Offerors shall submit the Past Performance List of References, Attachment 3 and send blank Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), Attachment 4, to present and/or past Government/Industry customers for contracts considered relevant and recent. Recent contracts are defined as those of which all or a substantial portion (12 continuous months or more) of performance occurred during the last three (3) years from date of Solicitation issuance. Relevant performance includes present/past performance efforts that demonstrate a record of providing services similar in scope and magnitude to those required by the PWS (Attachment 1). The offeror must provide at least two but no more than four contracts/task orders for past performance evaluation. A minimum of two projects must be for work performed by the prime and remainder may be for work performed by a teaming partner. Past performance for team members will not be evaluated unless a signed Teaming Arrangement (TA) or Letter of Intent (LOI) is submitted. To be valid under this solicitation, a Teaming Arrangement (TA) or Letter of Intent (LOI) must commit the business entities to performance under this contract

In assessing past performance, Offerors are advised that the Government shall obtain past performance information as necessary, including, but not limited to, that contained in Past

3 | P a g e

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports, the past and present efforts provided by the offeror in the Past Performance List of References (Attachment 3), PPQs (Attachment 4) and/or data independently obtained from other government or commercial sources.

Note: If the contract you are referencing is an IDIQ, ensure the Task Order No. of relevant performance is annotated on Attachments 3 and 4.

a. Offerors shall follow-up to ensure that the Government receives completed questionnaires.

Forms submitted directly to the Government by the offeror will NOT satisfy the requirement for past performance information and will not be evaluated. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that their customers complete the form and return it DIRECTLY to Kari Barnett, Contract Specialist, at kari.barnett@hotmail.com and Laura Herring (laura.herring.2@us.af.mil) by the closing date and time.

b. The evaluation of PPI will take into account past performance information regarding the offeror’s experience as a prime or subcontractor only.

c. Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

(i) Company Name

(ii) Contract Number

(iii) Description of work performed (include # FTEs)

(iv) Period of Performance

(v) Contracting Agency POC/Customer, Verified up-to-date name, telephone number and email

(vi) Total Contract Dollar Value and Annual Contract Values

SECTION III – PRICE:

Addendum to 52.212-1(c), Period for Acceptance of Offers. The paragraph is tailored as follows:

“The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.”

Addendum to 52.212-1(d), Product Samples, is deleted in its entirety.

Addendum to 52.212-1(e), Multiple Offers, is deleted in its entirety.

Addendum to 52.212-1(g), Contract Award, is deleted in its entirety.

Addendum to 52.212-1(h), Multiple Awards, is deleted in its entirety.

See Attachment 5: PRK Clinical Services Pricing Worksheet

SECTION IV– EVALUATION OF COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSIONAL

EMPLOYEES

Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP):

In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, offerors shall provide a separate PECP in addition to the mailto:kari.barnett@hotmail.com

4 | P a g e

Pricing Worksheet (Attachment 2). Unburdened rates specified in the PECP shall agree with unburdened rates in the Pricing Worksheet (Attachment 2). The following labor categories are considered professional employees and shall be included in the PECP: Optometrist, Clinical Manager and Administrative Service Manager. Offerors shall propose to the labor category above and shall state salaries and fringe benefits for all professional employees proposed to meet the PWS requirements. Offerors shall state a specific salary and total fringe benefit percentage for each labor category and SHALL NOT propose salary ranges or ranges of benefits. The total fringe benefit percentage shall be a single percentage capturing all fringe benefits applicable to each labor category. The PECP shall also itemize the specific benefits included in the total fringe benefit percentage. Offerors shall include in the PECP data for all proposed subcontractors, affiliates, and other teaming partners. The PECP shall include a clear mapping of all compensation data to the labor categories proposed. It shall also include sufficient supporting data to substantiate the compensation plan, including recognized national, regional and local compensation surveys and/or studies of professional, private and public organizations used to establish the compensation plan. The PECP shall also include company and teaming partner policies and procedures necessary to explain how salary and fringe benefits are determined, including but not limited to, holidays, sick leave, health care, pension, and 401(k) plan. It shall also include local salary, fringe, recruiting, and retention data for the geographic area of San Antonio, Texas, which is necessary to support or explain the offeror’s compensation plan. The PECP shall not exceed six (6) pages (6 sides), 8.5 x 11 inches each, clearly legible and submitted as a .pdf file. It may consist of multiple file types (e.g., Excel spreadsheet for salary and fringe data and Word document with supporting data) but shall be combined into a single .pdf file upon submittal.

(End of Instructions to Offeror)

FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

The Government will review proposals received to determine if they are responsive to the solicitation. A responsive proposal is one that meets all of the terms, conditions and specifications in the solicitation. The Offeror must provide all documents listed and comply with all proposal instructions in order for their proposal to be considered “responsive” to this Solicitation. Non-responsive offers may be considered ineligible for award.

The Government intends to issue a contract utilizing a best value/trade-off approach where past performance is significantly more important than price. An offeror’s proposed PECP will be evaluated to determine if the proposed compensation plan is acceptable in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. If an Offeror’s compensation plan is determined to be unacceptable the offeror may be considered ineligible for award. Award will be made to the Offeror providing an offer that is deemed most advantageous to the Government. Tradeoff considerations may result in the determination that it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than highest rated offeror in past performance.

5 | P a g e

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal and respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

For the purposes of identifying the order past performance evaluations will be conducted, offers shall be ranked according to price, from lowest to highest.

If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment, and an acceptable PECP that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating, past performance for the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order, by price) until an offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating, or if no offers are judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating, until all offerors are evaluated. The CO shall then make an integrated assessment best value/tradeoff award decision. Tradeoff considerations may result in the determination that it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than highest rated offeror in past performance.

The Government intends to award based on initial submissions without conducting interchanges.

Therefore, each proposal should contain the contractor’s best terms from a price standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to hold interchanges if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the CO and the contractor that may address any aspect of the proposal and may/may not be documented in real time. Interchanges may be conducted with one, some, or all, as the Government is not required to conduct interchanges with any and/or all contractors responding to the solicitation.

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Past performance is significantly more important than price.

Factor 1 – Past Performance Factor 2 – Price

Factor 1 - Past Performance Past performance will be evaluated for recency, relevance, and quality based on Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports, the past and present efforts provided by the offeror on the Past Performance List of References (Attachment 4), and/or data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources in order to establish a single performance confidence assessment rating as follows:

6 | P a g e

• Recent past performance is defined as that of which all or a substantial portion (12 continuous months or more) of performance occurred during the last three (3) years from date of Solicitation issuance. Performance that does not meet the definition of recent will not be evaluated for relevancy or quality of performance.

Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort as this solicitation.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort as this solicitation.

• Relevant past performance is defined as projects that demonstrate a record of providing services similar in scope and magnitude to those required by the PWS (Attachment 1).

Performance that does not meet the definition of relevant will not be evaluated for quality of performance.

o Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following:

similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel, and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

Table 2. Past Performance Quality Ratings

Rating Definition

Exceptional The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with very few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

Very Good The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

Satisfactory

The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were resolved satisfactorily.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problems(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

7 | P a g e

Neutral

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

• Quality Performance efforts that qualify as recent and relevant will then be evaluated for quality of performance. Each evaluated effort will receive one of the following performance ratings: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory, or Neutral.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

• In establishing the Performance Confidence Assessment rating, greater consideration may be given to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this Solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this solicitation based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment as described in Table 3 outlined above.

Factor 2 - Price

Compensation Plan: Upon identification of the apparent successful offeror, the Government will conduct a limited price realism analysis of the offeror’s PECP to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the task order requirements. The objective of the PECP realism analysis is to evaluate whether proposed compensation for professional employees is too low for the geographic area where performance will occur.

The Government will evaluate the apparent successful offeror’s compensation, defined as salaries plus fringe benefits, for its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its

8 | P a g e consistency with a total plan for compensation. This includes the extent to which the labor category mapping and other supporting data explains and substantiates the offeror’s PECP.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed salaries and fringe benefits account for differences in skills, complexity of discipline, professional job difficulty, and historic recruiting and retention patterns for the required labor categories in the geographic area of San Antonio, Texas. The Government may use Government civilian rates, similar contract labor rates, salary websites, or any other information source it deems appropriate or beneficial to its realism evaluation. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the proposed labor categories may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements and Government will proceed with the evaluation to determine the lowest price offeror with substantial confidence performance assessment and acceptable PECP.

Pricing Worksheet: An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified within each line item included on the Pricing Worksheet (Attachment 2) by the unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount of each. Completion of pricing for each line item will be necessary in order to submit a proposal for each Option Year. The TEP includes the total price for all options, if applicable, along with the basic requirement. To account for the possibility that the Government may utilize the "Option to Extend Services" clause at FAR 52.217-8 (for a period not to exceed six months), the Government will use the offered prices for all CLINs of the final option period, prorate them to a six-month value, then, add the prorated amount to the sum of all CLINs (base period plus all option periods). The resulting amount will be the TEP. Offerors shall propose on all items. Proposals that fail to price each item or indicate services will be provided at no charge may be evaluated as noncompliant. Other than firm fixed-price offers will be evaluated as noncompliant. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the proposed total evaluated price for the apparent successful offeror.

(End of Evaluation Criteria)